Comparison of an inertial sensor system of lameness quantification with subjective lameness evaluation.

REASONS FOR PERFORMING STUDY: Subjective evaluation of mild lameness has been shown to have poor interobserver reliability. Traditional methods of objective lameness evaluation require specialised conditions and equipment. Wireless inertial sensor systems have been developed to allow for simple, rapid, objective lameness detection in horses trotted over ground. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the sensitivities of an inertial sensor system and subjective evaluation performed by experienced equine practitioners at detecting lameness in horses. We hypothesised that the inertial sensor system would identify lameness at a lower level of sole pressure than a consensus of 3 experienced equine veterinarians. METHODS: Fifteen horses were fitted with special shoes that allowed for lameness induction via sole pressure. Horses were simultaneously evaluated by 3 equine veterinarians and a wireless inertial sensor system. Horses were subjected to multiple trials: 1) before inserting the screw; 2) after inserting the screw to just touch the sole; and 3) after tightening the screw in half turn increments. The number of screw turns required for lameness identification in the correct limb by the inertial sensors and by consensus of 3 equine veterinarians was compared using the Wilcoxon test. RESULTS: The inertial sensor system selected the limb with the induced lameness after fewer screw turns than did the 3 veterinarians (P<0.0001). The inertial sensor system selected the correct limb before the 3 veterinarians in 35 trials (58.33%), the evaluators selected the correct limb before the inertial sensors in 5 trials (8.33%), and in 20 trials (33.33%) they selected the correct limb at the same time. POTENTIAL RELEVANCE: The inertial sensor system was able to identify lameness at a lower level of sole pressure than the consensus of 3 equine veterinarians. The inertial sensor system may be an effective aid to lameness localisation in clinical cases.

Clinical assessment of blood glucose homeostasis in horses: comparison of a continuous glucose monitoring system with a combined intravenous glucose and insulin test protocol.

BACKGROUND: The combined glucose-insulin test (CGIT) is helpful for evaluating insulin sensitivity. A continuous glucose monitoring system (CGMS) reports changes in interstitial glucose concentrations as they occur in the blood. Use of the CGMS minimizes animal contact and may be useful when performing a CGIT. HYPOTHESIS: Results obtained using a CGMS are useful for the evaluation of glucose responses during the evaluation of insulin sensitivity in equids. ANIMALS: Seven mature, obese ponies. METHODS: Ponies were equipped with CGMS for determination of interstitial glucose concentrations. Glucose (150 mg/kg, i.v.) and insulin (0.1 U/kg, i.v.) were administered and blood glucose concentrations determined at (minutes after time zero) 1, 5, 15, 25, 35, 45, 60, 75, 90, 105, and 120 with a hand-held glucometer. Blood chemistry results were compared with simultaneously obtained results using CGMS. RESULTS: Concordance coefficients determined for comparison of blood glucose concentrations determined by a hand-held glucometer and those determined by CGMS after the zero time point were 0.623, 0.764, 0.834, 0.854, and 0.818 (for delays of 0, 5, 10, 15, and 20 minutes, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: Interstitial glucose concentrations obtained by the CGMS compared favorably to blood glucose concentrations. CGMS may be useful for assessment of glucose dynamics in the CGIT.

Repeatability of subjective evaluation of lameness in horses.

REASONS FOR PERFORMING STUDY: Previous studies have suggested that agreement between equine veterinarians subjectively evaluating lameness in horses is low. These studies were limited to small numbers of horses, evaluating movement on the treadmill or to evaluating previously-recorded videotape. OBJECTIVES: To estimate agreement between equine practitioners performing lameness evaluations in horses in the live, over ground setting. METHODS: 131 mature horses were evaluated for lameness by 2-5 clinicians (mean 3.2) with a weighted-average of 18.7 years of experience. Clinicians graded each limb using the AAEP lameness scale by first watching the horse trot in a straight line only and then after full lameness evaluation. Agreement was estimated by calculation of Fleiss' (kappa). Evaluators agreed if they picked the same limb as lame or not lame regardless of the severity of perceived lameness. RESULTS: After only evaluating the horse trot in a straight line clinicians agreed whether a limb was lame or not 76.6% of the time (kappa= 0.44). After full lameness evaluation clinicians agreed whether a limb was lame or not 72.9% of the time (kappa= 0.45). Agreement on forelimb lameness was slightly higher than on hindlimb lameness. When the mean AAEP lameness score was >1.5 clinicians agreed whether or not a limb was lame 93.1% of the time (kappa= 0.86), but when the mean score was < or = 1.5 they agreed 61.9% (kappa= 0.23) of the time. When given the task of picking whether or not the horse was lame and picking the worst limb after full lameness evaluation, clinicians agreed 51.6% (kappa= 0.37) of the time. CONCLUSIONS: For horses with mild lameness subjective evaluation of lameness is not very reliable. POTENTIAL RELEVANCE: A search for and the development of more objective and reliable methods of lameness evaluation is justified and should be encouraged and supported.